#so what is it? neo-luddism?

[biracy]

Also I'm well-known for this take already but the idea that Phone is some kind of society-destroying brain-damaging evil because it impacts productivity oops sorry "creativity" is veeery direct conservative reactionary bullshit. This also applies to the concept of an "attention span" and how a "long" attention span is framed as a net positive and even a moral good (even and especially among people I know with diagnosed adhd which like, lol). The kneejerk worship of "productivity" (yes even "creative" productivity), manual labor ("making REAL things with your HANDS"), and neo-luddism ("phone bad" and etc) are all central tenets of modern trad and fash movements, but no one actually ever bothered to learn what those words mean so we ended up here. Phone is literally destroying your brain and you're a worthless slime mold if you don't carve wood or bake bread and society is degenerating because cars are being made in fewer colors. #woke

[moxogeni]

>what exactly is preventing your society from arranging itself into a feudal society just as existed the last time humanity lived in pre-industrial conditions? The goal of my political project is about minimizing coercion. I have attempted to do this by creating material conditions in which people have little leverage over others, and social/political conditions which are free of spooks. When individuals aren't dependent on each other, then the conditions under which hierarchy develops do not arise.

>Collective, industrial labor can protect you from starvation a lot better than individual "primitive" labor can, and so I feel any "humiliation" one may experience by having to work alongside other people towards a collective goal is offset by the benefits of collectivization. Collectivization necessitates the atomization and negligibility of the individual, but I think we'd just have to agree to disagree on this one, since it's a matter of preference between an easy, less free life and a harder, freer life.

>My first disagreement is that Kaczynski (and you by extension) routinely conflate industrial technology with the social system of capitalism and thus assume that there exists a unique "industrial society" separate from capitalism that is responsible for all modern socio-psychological ills, and so if we were to abandon capitalism but retain industrial technology, then these socio-psychological ills would remain despite our best efforts. As a former leftist myself, the reason I left is because I read ISAIF, which laid out those problems which are inherent to Industrialism, regardless of the system that runs it. Nobody is saying that if we were to get rid of capitalism, life would not be better. In many ways it would. But the point of Neo-Luddism are those problems which no system can solve, the inherent aspects of Industrialism.

>My second disagreement is with Kaczynski's concept of the "power process", which his ideas of "surrogate activities" and his conception of autonomy come from. He is quite frankly just extrapolating his own experience as a middle-class white man living in the US to be a universal experience, and his own particular complexes with regards to individual power and autonomy as necessary for the human psyche with a "biological basis". This is the U.S. population by race and income. Obviously what Kaczynski wrote about was mostly applicable to the middle-class, because that's what a majority of people are.

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-american-middle-class/

Kaczynski's analysis is irrelevant to his race, and is completely relevant to his material conditions, so I don't know why you added "white" into there. Anyway, basically all philosophy is extrapolating off your own personal experiences, and It'd be hard to find a psychological blueprint of the self that did not do this to some degree. Kaczynski gives good examples and sufficient reasoning to back his idea of the self. Kaczynski himself admitted that his manifesto was a very rough sketch of his ideas, but I would say that a need for autonomy and work are at least to some degree prevalent amongst the population. I, myself, do not agree with the idea that every human being follows this psychological model, but it is applicable to most.

>If I were to give him the greatest benefit of the doubt, I would say that what he is describing is in actuality the alienation of capitalist society. However, where Kaczynski inverts the Marxist conception of alienation is in presupposing that the pursuit of one's means of subsistence as an individual in the wilderness is inherently less alienating than industrial labor. He doesn't "presuppose" it; he spends most of the manifesto explaining why he feels that way.

>In any case, the Unabomber's manifesto is a thoroughly reactionary work that decries the modern decline in "traditional values", explicitly proclaiming racial and gender equality and LGBT rights to be socially negative. Kaczynski doesn't "decry" the decline of traditionalism. He outright mocks those who do, saying conservatives "whine about the decay of traditional values". What he does do is say that this decline in traditional values instead represents decline of small-scale social groups. I would disagree with Kaczynski on this front: Industrialism does not necessarily degrade social groups (Communism is a good example of the maintenance of these smaller groups). I think that you're speaking of his hatred of leftism. Yes, he does spend a good part of the manifesto spewing mostly unjustified nonsense about leftists, but he makes sure to explicitly say that he is not against their inherent ideas (he says abuse of women is a bad thing), just the psychological profile of leftism, saying "We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. are inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology." Kaczynski does however state some socially right-wing things, which I disagree with him on. He implies that transgenderism is a bad thing, which I would wholeheartedly disagree with (I am, in fact, transgender).

>He mythologizes the US settler colonial frontier lifestyle, treating it as an example of the type of society he thinks is ideal while ignoring the fact that these settlers were dependent on both the "collectivist" indigenous nations and the industrial cities they left behind for their survival. Kaczynski's accolades of the frontier lifestyle are based on his analysis of their material conditions, rather than their political ones. Futhermore, I wouldn't say that they were "dependent" on an Industrialized society. They lived mostly self-sufficient lives. Even if they were, he mostly uses it to point out how autonomy in labor leads to greater freedom and a satisfaction of the power process.

>He harps on about how we must only organize into "SMALL" groups of six people or less to preserve individual freedom and autonomy [...] despite the fact that humans routinely organize themselves into groups of hundreds of people within contemporary hunter-gatherer societies. "In those days an entire county might have only a couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered community. One may well question whether the creation of this community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the pioneer’s need for the power process." Here, Kaczynski, while leaving the question of the group's creation up for the reader's discretion, does say that a group of a few hundred people could serve the need for the power process, and by extension, it is a satisfactory social arrangement. He does not "harp on" about "six people or less", he doesn't mention that at all.

>Kaczynski was an ignorant and bigoted man who thought he knew what was best for everyone else and murdered innocent people to make a statement. Besides the ad hominem, it's interesting to see you decry Kaczynski's killings despite supporting Lenin's revolution, which killed far more people. At any rate, all political philosophers more or less think they know what's best for everyone else, that's why they write: to improve the world.

>I would not agree that death is preferable. Explain why my reasoning is faulty.

>Kaczynski himself admits that what he calls surrogate activities are not universally unsatisfying. He asserts that either "many" or "most" people are unsatisfied, but he does not go so far as to say that all people are. I was generalizing, but wouldn't it be best to work toward a society where most people are satisfied (from a moralist perspective at least).

>then I say we can set aside some plot of land sufficient enough for however many people who want to live this lifestyle. If they decide to stay, then they can. If they don't, then they can come back. This is a very good segue into another problem I have with Industrialism: sustainability. No matter how conservatively you allocate resources, eventually, the mines will dry up, and the pastures will become infertile. There simply isn't a way to get around that Industrialism is built on the idea that there will always be replacement parts. Sometimes, you just have to throw things away. When enough stuff gets thrown away, we run out of resources, and the system will collapse. When this happens, the population will be so bloated and so many people will be alive that the consequences will be disastrous, far worse than if we simply dismantled or destroyed the system right now. The organized and industrialized agriculture would collapse, and when this happens there will be a famine unlike the world has ever seen. It is better to get rid of it now than later.

>But you arbitrarily declare the pride one feels from collective achievement to be the result of a "surrogate activity" and thus inherently lesser than individual achievement. The original point I was making was that you were alienated from the objects you used on a day-to-day basis. You did not create any of them, you were given them in exchange for your labor in a (usually) completely unrelated task relative to that thing's production. When you asked why that mattered, I said that when you used something you had made, you feel proud and good about it and yourself.

>Kaczynski did not make a distinction between individual and collective activities when defining his surrogate activity, his distinction was between whether or not the goal satisfied one's physical needs Not the definition of surrogate activity. This is: "Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person’s pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity".

>I don't believe that activities that do not contribute to satisfying one's physical needs are "decadent" (in Kaczynski's words) or otherwise mentally harmful to the individual. You misunderstand the definition of surrogate activity, which is defined in the paragraph above. You said yourself that Kaczynski did not think that all non-subsistence activities are surrogate.

>That one can imagine a thing does not mean that thing can exist in the real world. By "imagine" I meant that such a social order could exist, obviously. You can "imagine" anything.

>And I'm perfectly fine with people who think like you being free to live in the wilderness as autonomously as you want, so long as you aren't hurting anyone else. (Bold and italics mine) That's where we have a disagreement: should a government be allowed to stop me from hurting others, from exercising my freedom without restriction?

>But why wouldn't more people specialize? I'm not saying that they wouldn't or that it'd be inherently bad. It's entirely possible everyone might have some kind of specialization (placed on top of their basic skills).

>How do you think we got to where we are today? Are the anarcho-primitivist egoists going to form a special order and go around burning down farms and pastures every time someone tries to re-invent agriculture? It's absurd to think that everyone will just abandon farming out of their own free will. Hunter-gatherers actually had a more varied and healthy diet than their farming counterparts*. I'd say it's absurd to think that everyone will just abandon hunter-gathering out of their own free will. Given that people did, in fact, abandon hunter-gatherer lifestyles in exchange for farming, I'd like to clarify. The level of technological order I propose would make living a quasi-primitive lifestyle much more consistent and easier than a primitive society (I'm not an anprim). I don't even think that practicing agriculture is inherently bad, it just tends to lead to coercive social arrangements that can be avoided via self-sufficient hunter-gatherer lifestyles

*https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2106743119

>What is the mechanism through which your egoist anarcho-primitivist society could be achieved The question of revolution is an important one. Personally, I'm a fan of "shadow cell" organization and direct-action. The first step to revolution is mass-radicalization. This will be easier in the coming years as everything goes to shit under the Trump Administration.

>what is the mechanism through which it would be maintained? Self-sufficency: the ability to eliminate coercion of dependence.

alright.

I'll start with Lenin first, then move to Marx. Lenin was an autocrat and a dictator. There's no way around it. He was unelected and created a one-party state. This was due to the fact that the revolution was led by a vanguard, which the members of, once they succeeded in overthrowing the old government, could easily set up a self-serving dictatorship. He's not a Marxist, and he's not a Socialist.

Since Lenin obviously did not in any way uphold the vision of Marx, I'll tackle him separately. A (stateless) communist society does eliminate many hierarchies, but leaves the most coercive systems untouched. Those being: the hierarchy of the collective over the individual and that coercion required of industrialism. In a commune, one's individual vote is negligible, since the outcome is only affected by one person's vote in very rare circumstances. Once the votes are tallied, the individual is expected to conform to the decisions of the majority, and to accept the commune's laws and customs. This leads to the individual becoming feeling helpless and weak.

Secondly, Marxism fails to address the coercion required to make an industrial society function. In order to have products, you must have a payroll of workers to stand where they are told to stand and do what they are told to do and go home and show up to work when they are told to do it. Instead of working towards goals that are immediate, which directly affect one's condition (such as building a house to live in), one must do a task or set of tasks that ultimately has little to do directly with one's own material well-being. Instead, the hyperspecialized work required in an industrial society is made livable indirectly via trade. This leads to a dependence on the industrial system as a whole, which requires a massive amount of cohesion to function.

Humans are no longer permitted to act autonomously since doing so would be a hindrance to the system. Behaviors which are not conducive to the system are disallowed, but all unimportant facets of our life which do not interfere with the functioning of the system are permitted to grow within said limits.

Lenin was elected as Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars by the Congress of Soviets a total of nine times before his death. His position was not one elected by the people directly, but rather he was elected by the congressional representatives of the soviets who were themselves elected by the people. You can argue that his position should have been directly elected if you want, but you cannot say he was unelected. Regardless, while the Chairman of the CPC was the head of government of the RSFSR, and later the Soviet Union, the CPC was not a one-person council and the council as a whole was subordinate to the Central Executive Committee, which was in turn subordinate to the Congress of Soviets. Lenin was not an autocrat or a dictator; he did not hold sole legal authority and the Soviet government had numerous checks and balances.

I see no reason to believe a vanguard party or a one-party state is undemocratic. The USSR was a dictatorship, but not a dictatorship of one person. It was a dictatorship of the proletariat, as the bourgeoisie were stripped of the right to vote and to be elected. You can object to this if you like, but I personally don't think that was a bad decision.

You seem to be arguing that Lenin was neither Marxist nor socialist because the nascent Soviet Union was not yet classless or stateless. Yet why should it have been expected to be? Communism is not something that can be achieved overnight, or even in one generation. In the meantime, there must be some mechanism for suppressing and overthrowing the bourgeoisie. No matter how democratic, how horizontal, and how people-oriented that mechanism is, it still constitutes a state insofar as it constitutes an organ for the oppression of one class by another. Unless you are arguing that the rights of the bourgeoisie should be maintained and protected, you cannot escape this fact.

At the point of achieving a stateless, classless communist society, I don't see why decision-making would necessarily be performed through simple majority vote. While it's rather pointless in my mind to be speculating about how a hypothetical communist society of the future might function, I think it's safe to say they'd be far more capable of exploring alternative forms of decision-making than we are now. In any case, the question of how a future communist society might function is entirely separate from questions of past and present systems of government.

You are right to point out that the industrial mode of production requires collective and specialized activity in order to function, but I fail to see what the alternative is. Humans are a social animal, our production has always been collective and we have always benefited from specialization in labor. The advancement in industry has made possible a reduction in socially necessary labor time, not an increase. It is capitalism and the profit motive that has mandated long hours and low autonomy in the workplace, not industry itself.

People are not inherently stupid or self-centered. They can understand very well the relationship between one sector of industry and another. You do not need to be building a house to understand how, for instance, the nails you are manufacturing will be used to build houses and other goods. You do not need to be manufacturing nails to understand how the iron you are mining will be used to make nails and other goods. The idea that it is alienating to be engaged in a task that is socially beneficial rather than merely individually beneficial is absurd.

You talk about social cohesion as if it is impossible or undesirable. But again, what is the alternative? An incoherent, fragmented society? No society at all, and people just fend for themselves as individuals? I fail to see how anything less than social cohesion is desirable.

You say that industrial society is coercive and prevents people from acting autonomously. I say, what does it mean to act autonomously? Humans must satisfy our basic needs before we can think about engaging in autonomous activity. If you are starving, you are compelled to seek food. If you are freezing, you are compelled to seek shelter. Individual freedom is subordinate to our material conditions, and only through improving our material conditions can we satisfy our basic needs and guarantee individual freedom.

If we are to have a society where the individual freedoms of everyone are maximized, then we must have a society which guarantees everyone their basic needs. Food, shelter, clothing, medicine, education, transportation, communication, etc. All of these must be secured before a person has full freedom to act autonomously. Improving the quality of these things and the efficiency of their production improves the standard of living and reduces socially necessary labor time, which allows for greater degrees of freedom.

You say behaviors which are not conducive to the system are disallowed. I do not necessarily disagree, but I feel you are intentionally obscuring the nature of such behaviors. What is “the system” here? The system is society. So a behavior not conducive to society is an anti-social behavior, a behavior that impedes or harms other members of society. Why should these behaviors be allowed? Is it maximizing autonomy and freedom to allow someone to steal or rape or murder with impunity? No, it is merely trading someone else's freedom and autonomy for your own.

You can certainly maximize your own freedom and autonomy at the expense of others, but if we are to live in a society where the freedom and autonomy of everyone is to be maximized, then there must be certain limits to individual behavior for the sake of others. Maybe someday humanity will evolve to a state where one can live in their own private world with maximum freedom to do as they please without worrying about impacting others, but until that day we will have to live in a society with other people and the social restrictions that come with that. Personally, I don't think it's such a burden to have to care about other people.

Society as it stands today is indeed imperfect and often oppressive. Socialist states in the past and present have yet to achieve the classlessness and statelessness that marks higher-stage socialism, i.e. communism. They too are imperfect and have restricted people's behavior in various ways, some I would argue are necessary, and some I would argue are unnecessary. However, I believe that socialism offers us the greatest opportunity to improve society as a whole and liberate humanity from oppressive structures. I believe that capitalism remains the central impediment to the advancement of society and the pursuit of human freedom. I believe that a vanguard party and a dictatorship of the proletariat have been the most effective means of combating the bourgeoisie so far. And I believe that the advancement of science and industry has been the most effective means of securing and improving the basic needs of the people as a whole.

My question to you remains: what is the alternative? You can criticize all you want, and thoughtful and rational critique of all things is both important and beneficial, but unless you have an alternative to socialist revolution and industrial society, then you're just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How are we to combat the bourgeoisie without a vanguard or a state? How are we to provide people with their basic needs without industrial production?

[cosmogyros]

It's kind of ridiculous that people are scolded for staring at their phones and told to "look up and interact with the world" although they might be using the phone to interact with anyone, anywhere in the world – and meanwhile I, scribbling away navel-gazingly in my notebook and not paying attention to anything but the inside of my own head, somehow get a free pass.

[graywyvern]

( "the entrance to the underworld" via / "iberian lynx" by bordalo ii via sonja jovanovic in archaeology & civilizations on fb via charley mitcherson )

"Even if we focus solely on the efforts to revitalize the idea of Luddism for the computer era, there are real differences in the way that Luddite is defined between Thomas Pynchon’s 'Is It O.K. To Be a Luddite?' (1984) and Chellis Glendinning’s 'Notes Toward a Neo-Luddite Manifesto' (1990) and the outpouring of recent work on the Luddites (much of it quite excellent) that we have seen in recent years."

"We passed on an Odessa pew." --Bill A. O’Connor (via @Big_Leaf)

Deseret alphabet.

"The Absence of the Muse

O Muse, where loiterest thou? In any land Of Saturn, lit with moons and nenuphars? Or in what high metropolis of Mars— Hearing the gongs of dire, occult command, And bugles blown from strand to unknown strand Of continents embattled in old wars That primal kings began? Or on the bars Of ebbing seas in Venus, from the sand Of shattered nacre with a thousand hues, Dost pluck the blossoms of the purple wrack And roses of blue coral for thy hair? Or, flown beyond the roaring Zodiac, Translatest thou the tale of earthly news And earthly songs to singers of Altair?"

--Clark Ashton Smith

Runes, Runology and Runologists.

“Another explanation of the deadening of our survival instinct is that the changes in living that would be required are so drastic that people prefer the future catastrophe to the sacrifice they would have to make now.” - Erich Fromm (via @libshipwreck)

"Greed is devoid of grace. It operates in the dark; it feeds on isolation, distraction, insecurity, shame, hostility, weakness, deceit, despair. It is the opposite of generosity; without generosity there is no oxygen for courage. There is no nobility, no virtue, no honor, no glory…. Nothing worth having, and no world worth fighting for."

[collegeinit]

Neo Luddism (negative impact of technology)

The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes is growing day by day. Technology solves problems with various inventions. Technology has both negative and positive impacts. The pace of technology is transforming society which has made life easy but also created inequality between people. The rise of technology (such as nuclear technology, automation) has raised many questions doubting technology. Neo-Luddism or new Luddism is an ideology opposing many forms of technology. This ideology was active in the early stage of the 90s. People having the same ideology is called neo-Luddite. Neo Luddites oppose technology that is materialistic or destructive of society.

Rise of technology 

As a student of information technology, I have seen Technology has a big impact on the industrial revolution which has caused a large scale of urbanization. The technology was enhancing productivity with various inventions which helped industries work fast, easy and profitable. Due to this reason technology created many workers unemployed and in this period the labor wage started decreasing. This has created a big economic gap between people. Neo Luddism ideology is critical about technology. Neo Luddite is growing and cautious to adopt rising technology. Technology may be great but it can be harmful too. Technology is changing our society day by day. During my research I have found data from 1979 to 2008 U.S population has increased by 35% and manufacturing employment has dropped 31% from 19.4 million jobs to 13.5 million jobs. Technology invention has eliminated the jobs of humans by reducing the price of production. The adoption of technology has created huge unemployment for blue-collar jobs such as labor. It has also created a fear of losing jobs towards workers in various fields. Everyone is working very hard even when productivity has increased because of the fear of losing the job.

Internet 

The Internet is one of the popular inventions of Technology. It is a great source of information but every source is not reliable and trustworthy. I found 40% of the world’s population is using social media. Technology has reduced distance between people but it has also created distance of social relationships between people. The Internet has grown and every new generation is now involved in social media. Social media is very addictive, people on average spend two hours every day. Using computers for a long period can cause burning the vision. The screen of a computer can generate radiation that can harm the eyes. According to me, Social media has a good impact on society but it also has a toxic environment. People have too much involvement in their life in social media. It can cause distractions while we are doing focused work. As more users are using the internet everyone may not have good intentions. 

 Increasing the use of computers has increased computer crimes. Technology is growing rapidly and breaching our privacy. Nowadays, privacy issues are also rising as a student of information technology. Privacy of an individual is very important. Tracking location and spying information of an individual can be very easy for professionals because of electronic devices connected to a network. Big corporations are collecting data of people and data can be the next source of income. Many websites collect data and use them for advertising and marketing. Websites collecting data can track location and know users' likes and dislikes. Every individual has a different experience in social media but as I have seen social media it can influence people's perception. I have seen a piece of news about Cambridge Analytica which has collected millions of data of American citizens without their concern which helped Donald Trump to elect as a president of America. From this scenario, I can tell social media can influence and manipulate people. Mental health professionals are getting concerned about the impact of social media on mental health.

Digital divide 

According to me, technology has created a Digital divide between people. Aleph Molinari described the digital divide as,” The Digital Divide is the gap between individuals and communities that have access to information technologies and those that don’t”. Mobile, internet, computer, etc are technologies creating a digital divide. The Internet has been a great source for information but everyone can’t access the internet because of poverty which creates information poverty. Every day new inventions are coming into the market and everyone can’t afford those inventions. Technology is made for the betterment of human life but it is causing enormous negative effects on human life and creating division.

Technology impact on the environment

Technology has a negative impact such as climate, energy, water and creates waste. The industry is consuming energy heavily. As the population is increasing use of vehicles using energy such as fuel is also increasing which is increasing air pollution. The usage of energy is affecting the earth’s climate. I have seen so many articles about global warming .Technologies releasing carbon dioxide can be one of the causes of the greenhouse. Even in the field of agriculture, it uses technology which has a negative impact. Using pesticides, fertilizer and such chemicals can harm the soil. In the context of Nepal I have not seen waste management from industry which is polluting the environment.

I found neo-Luddism is a philosophy that opposes technology that hampers human life. It shows the technological influence on people's life. People should know what they are using and how they can impact our lives. I found that while using technology people should be aware about how its working and its impacts in the long term. During my research I found various impacts of technology.

[transhumanitynet]

SHALL WE PLAY A GAME? (pt.1 of 2)

SHALL WE PLAY A GAME? (pt.1 of 2)

Welcome to the Zero State (ZS). ZS is an activist community, part of the Social Futurist movement, and – depending on who you ask – it may or may not be a game. As noted here, just because something is a game, that does not mean it doesn’t have very real consequences. In any case, ZS wants you to join the fun. Who knows, perhaps you are already playing the game.

ZS tells a story

In the ZS mythos-narrative, acceleration of technological development and societal trends comes to a spectacular and rather unforgiving head somewhere around the middle of the 21st Century (C21). Some people make it. Many don’t. The “Zero State” is one of around a dozen societies left standing after the dust settles, later in the Century.

The punchline is that the societies left standing at the end of the Century bear little or no resemblance to the nations we know today, and about the only thing they all have in common is the fact that they survived by embracing some combination of high technology and efficient communal organization. Hyper-Individualism and Neo-Luddism turned out to be self-imposed death sentences, over the medium term (in other words, in an apocalyptic scenario going it alone or eschewing technology are very poor choices). Most of the cherished beliefs held by modern humans around the year 12020 had, within three decades, become every bit as obsolete as witch burnings, the Whig party, or wax cylinder recordings.

Now, for the twist: Several of these late-C21 societies, ZS included, have developed technologies which appear to manipulate the past. Whether these technologies represent bona fide time-travel, some kind of quantum physics parlour trick, or massive computational simulation of the Old World, inevitably they are used as tools in the continuing struggle for survival. As people (apparently) living in the early years of C21 come to believe they are agents of these future societies, ensnared in complex machinations to support one faction or other, one outcome or other, there is no clear way to be sure what is really true. So, we must ask:

Is this belief a delusion, some form of insanity?

If not, is it actually time travel, or some other technological trick?

Even if the whole thing is just a simulation or game, how would you distinguish between one game with serious consequences from another which is just trivial entertainment?

If you are the kind of person who questions reality and their role in it, then the breadcrumbs below and in part 2 of this article may interest you. If you are the kind of person who never thinks to ask such questions that’s fine, of course… just know that the world may not be as it seems, and there may be consequences to that, even if right now you think you don’t care. Who knows… one day, you might.

Following breadcrumb trails, down Rabbit Holes… 1. Come Together, Over Me: Blackstar Philosophy

The Blackstar (★) is a symbol of Technological Singularity, and of our Transhumanist Philosophy. As such, it represents the complete rebirth of ourselves, humanity, society, and the world, through ethically principled technology.

As a civilization-goal-ideal, this idea speaks to a broader memeplex including the power to rationally integrate multiple principles under one unifying ideal, to govern in strict accord with those principles, to work toward a collective identity as a people, to promote liberation from the constraints of the past, and renewal of the human civilization which emerged from various “cradles” across the Eurasian continent over the last several thousand years.

Most broadly speaking, this Blackstar Philosophy (which can also be denoted by the Greek letter Phi – Φ – in place of the Blackstar) begins with the core tenets of Cartesian Skepticism and Platonic Idealism.

From there, the rejection of imbalance, of Spectacle, and of governance-by-Dialectic leads to the general adoption of a Radical Centrist stance.

Within the broad space of possible Radical Centrist positions, we are Social Futurists. Not all Radical Centrists are Social Futurists, but all Social Futurists are Radical Centrists.

Finally, the Zero State is a prominent community and game within the space of potential Social Futurisms.

For more breadcrumbs & Rabbit Holes see Part 2 of this article.

SHALL WE PLAY A GAME? (pt.1 of 2) was originally published on transhumanity.net

[ronniemacsblog-blog]

About us:

My name is Arthur,i like to play video games to ride a bike and play with my dog and his name is yuri.

My name is Walter, I'm 15 years old. I like to be with my friends, go to parties and have fun with friends. I'm a good friend, and a good person.

My name is Iago Afini, I'm 15 years old. I like to ride my bike and play soccer. I am a friendly and kind person with the neighbor.

my name is Enzo Furlan, I'm 15 years old I like to ride a bike and play sports. I'm a good person and a trustworthy friend.

My name is Murilo Bernardo, I'm 15 years old. I am a creative person, and funny, and I have a strong personality. I like to play video games, play sports and go horseback riding. My favorite sport is team roping.

CINEMA:

TOP 8 of the best films 2018 

1-Roxanne Roxanne. Released: March 23. ...

2-The Endless. Released: April 6. ...

3-Skate Kitchen. Released: August 10. ...

4-Blockers. Released: April 6. ...

5-Unfriended: Dark Web. Released: July 20. ...

6-Crazy Rich Asians. Released: August 15. ...

7-Ant-Man and the Wasp. Released: July 6. ...

8-The Old Man & the Gun. Released: September 28.

THEATER: 

TOP 10 beautifull theaters in the world

1-Odeon of Herodes Attic - Athens, Greece

2-Opera Garnier - Paris, France

3-Grand Theater of the Liceu - Barcelona, ​​Spain

4-The Globe - London, United Kingdom

5-La Scala - Milão, Itália

6-Radio City Music Hall - New York, USA

7-Bolshoi Theater - Moscow, Russia

8-Sydney Opera House - Sydney, Australia

9-Teatro Colón - Buenos Aires, Argentina

10-Big National Theater - Pequim, China

TOP 5 the most famous comics.

1) Batman - The Dark Knight Returns (DC Comics)

Batman The Dark Knight Returns made almost every single "Best of" list I used. Consistently it was in the top five of every list out there and often at number one. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns was a 1986 four-issue miniseries by Frank Miller, illustrated also by Miller and Klaus Janson, and published by DC Comics.

2) The Sandman (DC Comics / Vertigo)

Dark fantasy, horror, surrealism- all these styles come together in the critically acclaimed The Sandman series from Vertigo Comics (a sub-imprint of DC Comics).  The Sandman was written by Neil Gaiman. Its artists included Sam Kieth, Mike Dringenberg, Jill Thompson, Shawn McManus, Marc Hempel, and Michael Zulli, with lettering by Todd Klein and covers by Dave McKean.

3) Watchmen (DC Comics)

No surprise here.  Watchmen is either at or near the top of every single "Best of comics" list.  It is the best selling graphic novel in comic book history and spun off a major motion picture. Watchmen was a graphic novel published by DC Comics in 1986 and 1987.

4) Kingdom Come (DC Comics)

This was my personal pick for number one as I enjoyed DC Comic's Kingdom Come far more than Dark Knight Returns, The Sandman, or Watchmen.  Kingdom Come was a four-issue mini-series published in 1996 by DC Comics under their Elseworlds imprint. It was written by Mark Waid and Alex Ross and painted by Ross.

5) Fables (Vertigo)

Fables was a comic book series created by Bill Willingham and published by DC Comics' Vertigo imprint. Willingham served as sole writer for its entirety, with Mark Buckingham penciling more than 110 issues. Fables was launched in July 2002, and concluded in July 2015.

TECHNOLOGY: Positive and Negatives things.

The simplest form of technology is the development and use of basic tools. The prehistoric discovery of how to control fire and the later Neolithic Revolution increased the available sources of food, and the invention of the wheel helped humans to travel in and control their environment. Developments in historic times, including the printing press, the telephone, and the Internet, have lessened physical barriers to communication and allowed humans to interact freely on a global scale.

Technology has many effects. It has helped develop more advanced economies (including today's global economy) and has allowed the rise of a leisure class. Many technological processes produce unwanted by-products known as pollutionand deplete natural resources to the detriment of Earth's environment. Innovations have always influenced the values of a society and raised new questions of the ethics of technology. Examples include the rise of the notion of efficiency in terms of human productivity, and the challenges of bioethics.

Philosophical debates have arisen over the use of technology, with disagreements over whether technology improves the human condition or worsens it. Neo-Luddism, anarcho-primitivism, and similar reactionary movements criticize the pervasiveness of technology, arguing that it harms the environment and alienates people; proponents of ideologies such as transhumanism and techno-progressivism view continued technological progress as beneficial to society and the human condition.

MUSICS: eletronics and coutry music.

 top 10 Eletronic musics 2018:

1-Alok, Zeeba and IRO Ocean 2-Alok, Bruno Martini feat. Zeeba Hear Me Now 3-Alok, Mathieu Koss Big Jet Plane 4-Alok, Bruno Martini, Zeeba Never Let Me Go 5-Dubdogz, Vitor Kley O Sol 6-Alok feat. Matheus & Kauan Soft 7-Dynoro In My Mind 8-Vintage Culture, KVSH, Breno Miranda Sing for Nós 9-Alok & Bhaskar Fire 10-Capital Cities Safe And Sound

top 8 Country music:

1. I Walk the Line – Johnny Cash

2. I Will Always Love You da Dolly Parton

3. Mama Tried de Merle Haggard

4. Crazy da Patsy Cline

5. We’re All Alone (Only) da Reba McEntire

6. Indian Outlaw do Tim McGraw

7. There You’ll Be da Faith Hill

8. Man! I Feel Like A Woman da Shania Twain

TECHNOWORLD:

TOP 5 COMMOM COMPUTER PROBLEMS AND SOLUTION:

1. Computer speed and performance is diminished.

One of the things that computer owners usually notice this. There are several reasons why it happens to your computer. Lack of maintenance, fragmented data, corrupted registry, spyware and unnecessary burden on computer programs and services can certainly affect your computer speed and performance. Manage your programs and cleaning the registry can easily increase your computer's performance up to 30%.

2. Computer system freezes and blue screens of death.

You have to do some serious diagnostic procedures to effectively know the problem with your computer. Computer virus or spyware might be some reason why this happens on your computer. Update your anti-spyware immediately to avoid such problems and thoroughly scan your computer to see if it has any viruses or spywares. If you find that your computer is free of spyware, then update your hardware drive is the next step. Hardware-drive makes it easier for your computer to communicate with other hardware components. Without an updated driver CPU locks up and can cause problems when you use your computer. If it does not work try to increase your computer memory to avoid computer freezes. By increasing the RAM you get more use your computer's computing power.

3. Computer stops at reboot again and again.

This kind of problem is usually associated with hardware problem. Faulty power supply is usually the cause of this problem. Dirty or defective fan is another reason why your computer is rebooting spontaneously. When your computer tries to cool itself when the fan is faulty it automatically shuts off. Dust has accumulated in your computer that can capture the heat inside, making it warmer. What you need to do is clean the fan and make sure it runs properly. Do not forget to check your power supply.

4. Sounds and vibrations.

This one is almost certain that you have a hardware problem. High frequency noise can be caused by electronic components. Whatever the reason, you conduct a small study. Unplug your computer and remove the case and run the computer to discover the origin of noise. If a loose wire or bad fan is what makes the noise so it may be time to call a computer tech to help you with your problem.

5. Your browser start page has changed.

It is known as "high-jacking", which is also caused by a spyware is installed on your system. The spyware on your computer has installed a javascript in your web browser, which tells your browser to change settings, thus changing the default homepage in your browser. What you can do is to run an anti-virus or spyware program to remove spyware from your computer.

All the problems stated in this article can be avoided easily by simply maintain your computer. Do not panic when you encounter a computer problem with your PC, because the key to fixing that problem is to correct diagnosis to identify what is happening on your computer. Take a few minutes to run some diagnostic tests or seek help in computer forums, before you rush out to computer Technical Center.

 WORLD’S MOST FAMOUS DANCES.

Belly Dance: Dance uses trunk, hips and abdomen movements, also used elements such as swords, veils, daggers, jugs and bowls. It began very closely with the religion, being initially danced only in the temples by priestesses of Old Egypt.

Tango: Tango is a dance that has emerged in Argentina and is known for its tangosensuality. The most known steps of Tango are the "hook" and the "ocho", the hook is characterized by the raised of leg of the couple and they hook the legs. The eight is a step executed by the woman and she draws the number eight with her legs.

Bharatanatyam: this dance is traditional and one of the oldest Bharatanatyamda India, it is classic in style and contains many expressions of body and face. Dancers use soft movements and poses. The dance is accompanied by musical instruments such as the flute, the violin and tambura.

10. Geórgia O’Keefe passava os dias em Lake George, Nova Iorque no início de 1900, o que inspirou muitas de suas obras. Esta pintura mostra as ondas suaves e ondulações do Lago George.

9. Provavelmente a mais famosa pintura de Salvador Dalí, 'A Persistência da Memória' foi criada em 1931 e agora é exibida no Museu de Arte Moderna de Nova Iorque. Dalí introduziu os relógios de bolso nesta obra. Você também pode fazer a figura humana no centro da pintura.

8. 'O Sonho de Pablo Picasso'. Picasso foi pioneiro no movimento de arte moderna chamado ''cubismo'' e é amplamente reconhecido como o artista mais importante do século 20.

7. 'Canto do Jardim de Montgeron' de Claude Monet. Este famoso quadro de Monet foi criado em 1877. Monet é conhecido como o impressionista clássico. Nesta obra, Monet captou a natureza sempre em mudança de luz e cor.

6. 'Café Terrace at Night' de Vincent Van Gogh. Nesta pintura, Van Gogh retrata um café em Arles, que hoje é chamado ''Café Van Gogh''. O estilo da pintura é original de Van Gogh com cores quentes e profundidade de perspectiva.

5. 'Girl with a Pearl Earring' de Jan Vermeer é uma das obras-primas do pintor. Como o seu nome indica, é utilizado um brinco de pérola como ponto focal usado por uma menina, provavelmente antes de seu casamento. A falta de fundo deixa o quadro ainda mais interessante e original.

4. 'Luncheon of the Boating Party' por Pierre Auguste Renoir. A pintura retrata um grupo de amigos de Renoir relaxando em uma varanda ao longo do rio Sena. Nesta pintura Renoir conquistou a alegria da classe média do final do século 19 na França, é uma pintura viva que traz felicidade e emoção para qualquer ambiente.

3. 'O Beijo' de Gustav Klimt. Klimt, o mestre de Viena pintou o beijo em 1907. A pintura retrata um casal rodeado por um manto de ouro e enfeites. Segundo críticos especialistas seria ''o beijo perfeito''.

2. 'Starry Night' de Vincent Van Gogh. Uma das pinturas mais conhecidas de hoje, 'Starry Night' de Van Gogh é uma pintura clássica que invoca emoções da serenidade do campanário da igreja para o abandono selvagem de cor usada para o seu céu da noite.

1. 'Mona Lisa' de Leonardo Da Vinci. A 'Mona Lisa', a pintura mais famosa do mundo e uma das mais valiosas, é propriedade do governo francês e pendura no Louvre, em Paris. A pintura mostra uma mulher olhando para o telespectador com o que é muitas vezes descrita como um sorriso ''enigmático''. A 'Mona Lisa' é talvez a parte mais famosa da história da arte, nenhuma outra obra de arte conseguiu causar tanta polêmica.

MADE BY: ARTHUR AUGUSTO, ENZO FURLAN, WALTER CALIL FILHO, MURILO BERNARDO e IAGO AFINI

[historyofthebook-blog]

Blog Eight - Book was There

The impact of digital technology on the printed novel has resulted in worries about the future of the book. Robert Coover’s The End of Books, declared “the print medium has come to its end”. Print, he prophesied, would be replaced by the digital medium: the novel, for its part, would be replaced by hypertext  fiction. 

In his seminal essay, “the death of the author”, Roland Barthes argues for the restoration of the place of the reader, rather than having the author impose limits on the text. Critics like Hammond think that this is only achievable with technology, and that it is the digital which will transform writing. Régis Debray says that with digital technology, the reader is “no longer simply spectator… but co-author of what he reads”. However, I think that the reader has never merely been a spectator, because, regardless of how authoritative the author wants to be, the reader has always done what he/she wants with a text and has always found their own path. I also think this fits in with what I previously said about the interactivity of texts. Literature has always been interactive in allowing each reader to do different things with a text. Therefore, as critics such as Wolfgang Iser and Stanley Fish believe, while the author puts the words on the page, it is the reader who brings them to life through the process of reading. In The Reading Process, Iser argues that the literary work possesses “two poles”: “the text created by the author” and “the realisation accomplished by the reader”.

I feel, then, that technology isn’t threatening the book because the book already does what technology is claiming to do: creating an interactive experience for the reader. At the same time then, technology doesn’t need to be feared because it is not facilitating the death of the book. Therefore, while I myself would prefer to read a book in the traditional sense (whether because of familiarity, nostalgia or neo-luddism I’m not entirely sure), things like the kindle and eBooks shouldn’t necessarily be criticized. Either way, it’s the text that’s providing this interactivity, so really the medium shouldn’t matter much.

I think this is beginning to set up the idea for my project, and reminds me of a quote from a video from my first blogpost.

From 3:42, the video says, “As the book evolves and we replace bound texts with flat screens and electronic ink, are these objects and files really books? Does the feel of the cover or the smell of the paper add something crucial to the experience? Or does the magic live only in the words, no matter what the presentation?

References:

Adam Hammond, “Interactivity: Revolution and Evolution in Narrative’ in Literature in the Digital Age (Cambridge University Press, 2016).

Régis Debray, The Future of the Book, 145 (1996). 

Wolfgang Iser, The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach’ in New Literary History, Vol. 3, No. 2, (Winter, 1972).

[collegeinit]

Neo Luddism (negative impact of technology)

The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes is growing day by day. Technology solves problems with the various invention. Technology has both negative and positive impacts. The pace of technology is transforming society which has made life easy but also created inequality between people. The rise of technology (such as nuclear technology, automation) has raised many questions doubting technology. Neo-Luddism or new Luddism is an ideology opposing many forms of technology. This ideology was active in the early stage of the 90s. People having the same ideology is called neo-Luddite. Neo Luddites oppose technology that is materialistic or destructive of society.

Rise of technology

As a student of information technology, I have seen Technology has a big impact on the industrial revolution which has caused a large scale of urbanization. The technology was enhancing productivity with various inventions which helped industries work fast, easy and profitable. Due to this reason technology created many workers unemployed and in this period the labor wage started decreasing. This has created a big economic gap between people. Neo Luddism ideology is critical about technology. Neo Luddite is growing and cautious to adopt rising technology. Technology may be great but it can be harmful too. Technology is changing our society day by day. During my research I have found data from 1979 to 2008 U.S population has increased by 35% and manufacturing employments have dropped 31% from 19.4 million jobs to 13.5 million jobs. Technology invention has eliminated the jobs of humans by reducing the price of production. The adaption of technology has created huge unemployment for blue-collar jobs such as labor. It has also created a fear of losing jobs towards workers in various fields. Everyone is working very hard even when productivity has increased because of the fear of losing the job.

Internet

The Internet is one of the popular inventions of Technology. It is a great source of information but every source is not reliable and trustworthy. I found 40% of the world’s population is using social media. Technology has reduced distance between people but it has also created distance of social relationships between people. The Internet has grown and every new generation is now involving in social media. Social media is very addictive, people on average spend two hours every day. Using computers for a long period can cause burring the vision. The screen of a computer can generate radiation that can harm the eyes. According to me, Social media has a good impact on society but it also has a toxic environment. People have too much involved their life in social media. It can cause distractions while we are doing focused work. As more users are using the internet everyone may not have good intentions.

Increasing the use of computers has increased computer crimes. Technology is growing rapidly and breaching our privacy. Nowadays, privacy issues are also rising as a student of information technology privacy of an individual is very important. Tracking location and spying information of an individual can be very easy for professionals because of electronic devices connected to a network. Big corporate are collecting data of people and data can be the next source of income. Many websites collect data and use them for advertisement and marketing. Websites collecting data can track location and know users' likes and dislikes. Every individual has a different experience in social media but as I have seen social media it can influence people's perception. I have seen a piece of news about Cambridge Analytica which has collected millions of data of American citizens without their concern which helped Donald Trump to elect as a president of America. From this scenario, I can tell social media can influence and manipulate people. Mental health professionals are getting concerned about the impact of social media on mental health.

Digital divide

According to me, technology has created a Digital divide between people. Aleph Molinari described the digital divide as,” The Digital Divide is the gap between individuals and communities that have access to information technologies and those that don’t”. Mobile, internet, computer, etc are technologies creating a digital divide. The Internet has been a great source for information but everyone can’t access the internet because of poverty which creates information poverty. Every day new inventions are coming into the market and everyone can’t afford those inventions. Technology is made for the betterment of human life but it is causing enormous negative effects on human life and creating division.

Technology impact on the environment

Technology has a negative impact such as climate, energy, water and creates waste. The industry is consuming energy heavily. As the population is increasing use of vehicles using energy such as fuel is also increasing which is increasing air pollution. The usage of energy is affecting the earth’s climate. I have seen so many articles about global warming .technologies releasing carbon dioxide can be one of the causes of the greenhouse. Even in the field of agriculture uses technology which has a negative impact. Using pesticides, fertilizer and such chemicals can harm the soil. In context of Nepal I have not seen waste management from industry which is polluting the environment.

I found neo-Luddism is a philosophy that opposes technology that hampers human life. It shows the technological influence on people's life. People should know what they are using and how can they impact our lives. I found that while using technology people should be aware about how its working and its impacts in a long term. During my research I found various impacts of technology.